SAO-33-2022 (O&M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

SAO-33-2022 (O&M)

Reserved on : 18.11.2022

Date of Decision : 30.11.2022

Sukhdev Kaur

....Appellant

VERSUS

Jagjit Singh

....Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present :

Mr. Abhinav Singla, Advocate for the appellant.

-.-

ALKA SARIN, J.

The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated

21.01.2022 passed by the Lower Appellate Court setting aside the judgement

and decree passed by the Tral Court and remitting the matter to the Trial

Court.

The brief facts relevant to the present case are that the plaintiff-

appellant filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of

agreement dated 30.10.2012 qua land measuring 7 kanals 11 marlas being

151/336 shares of land measuring 16 kanals 16 marlas, comprised in Khewat

No.1341min, Khatoni No.2745min, Rect. No.240, Killa No.13/2/2 (4-0),

18/1 (4-16), 23 (8-0), Kittas 3, situated within the revenue estate of village

Kalanwali, Tehsil and District Sirsa at the rate of Rs.12,00,000/- per acre.

The defendant-respondent was stated to have received Rs.10,00,000/- as

earnest money.

Notice of the suit was issued to the defendant-respondent.

However, since the defendant-respondent did not appear despite Munadi, he

TRIPTI SAINI

2022.11.30 17:48

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

SAO-33-2022 (O&M)

-2-

was proceeded against ex-parte and the suit of the plaintiff-appellant was

decreed vide ex-parte judgment and decree dated 28.03.2014. An appeal was

preferred against the said ex-parte judgment and decree. The lower

Appellate Court allowed the appeal vide impugned order dated 21.01.2022

and remitted the case back to be decided in accordance with law after due

opportunity to the defendant-respondent to file his written statement and to

lead evidence. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal has been

preferred by the plaintiff-appellant.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has contended that

the defendant-respondent was duly served by way of Munadi and once he

was duly served and chose not to appear he was rightly proceeded against

ex-parte.

Heard.

This Court in the case of Gram Panchayat of Village Kale ke

Uttar Vs. Surat Singh [1994 (3) PLR 448] held as under :

“8. From the perusal of the zimni orders, it is clear

that on the first date itself when the summons were

received back by the Court unserved, the trial Court

ordered that it was satisfied that the defendant cannot

be served in the ordinary way, and, therefore, summons

be served through munadi. There was no reason for the

Court to order the service by munadi, on the first date

itself when summons had been received back unserved.

The reason for not effecting the service have not been

stated. There was no fault of the defendant. The Court

on the first date itself ordered that service be effected

TRIPTI SAINI

2022.11.30 17:48

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

SAO-33-2022 (O&M)

-3-

through munadi and by the next date report regarding

service through munadi is received and the defendant

was proceeded ex-parte. Chowkidar of the village stated

that the had not effected the munadi or received the fee

which, of course, contradicted the Process Server Ravi

Kumar. On the perusal of the record, I am satisfied that

proper service has not been effected on the Gram

Panchayat. Court was not justified in ordering

substituted service on the first date itself. An institution

like Gram Panchayat in the absence of any suggestion

to the effect that the defendant was trying to avoid

service, ex-parte proceedings against Gram Panchayat

could

not

have

been

initiated,

under

these

circumstances. There was no proper service of the ram

Panchayat. Since I have held that